Back to Home11/18/2025, 4:32:16 PM

Show HN: Post: Optimizing LiteLLM with Rust – When Expectations Meet Reality

1 points
0 comments

Mood

thoughtful

Sentiment

neutral

Category

tech

Key topics

performance optimization

Rust

Python

I've been working on Fast LiteLLM - a Rust acceleration layer for the popular LiteLLM library - and I had some interesting learnings that might resonate with other developers trying to squeeze performance out of existing systems.

My assumption was that LiteLLM, being a Python library, would have plenty of low-hanging fruit for optimization. I set out to create a Rust layer using PyO3 to accelerate the performance-critical parts: token counting, routing, rate limiting, and connection pooling.

The Approach

   - Built Rust implementations for token counting using tiktoken-rs

   - Added lock-free data structures with DashMap for concurrent operations

   - Implemented async-friendly rate limiting

   - Created monkeypatch shims to replace Python functions transparently

   - Added comprehensive feature flags for safe, gradual rollouts

   - Developed performance monitoring to track improvements in real-time

The Results

  After building out all the Rust acceleration, I ran my comprehensive benchmark comparing baseline LiteLLM vs. the shimmed version:


 COMPREHENSIVE FUNCTION PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
Function Baseline Time Shimmed Time Speedup Improvement Status

token_counter 0.000035s 0.000036s 0.99x -0.6%

count_tokens_batch 0.000001s 0.000001s 1.10x +9.1%

router 0.001309s 0.001299s 1.01x +0.7%

rate_limiter 0.000000s 0.000000s 1.85x +45.9%

connection_pool 0.000000s 0.000000s 1.63x +38.7%

The Reality Check

Turns out LiteLLM is already quite well-optimized! The core token counting was essentially unchanged (0.6% slower, likely within measurement noise), and the most significant gains came from the more complex operations like rate limiting and connection pooling where Rust's concurrent primitives made a real difference.

Key Takeaways

1. Don't assume existing libraries are under-optimized - The maintainers likely know their domain well 2. Focus on algorithmic improvements over reimplementation - Sometimes a better approach beats a faster language 3. Micro-benchmarks can be misleading - Real-world performance impact varies significantly 4. The most gains often come from the complex parts, not the simple operations 5. Even "modest" improvements can matter at scale - 45% improvements in rate limiting are meaningful for high-throughput applications

While the core token counting saw minimal improvement, the rate limiting and connection pooling gains still provide value for high-volume use cases. The infrastructure I built (feature flags, performance monitoring, safe fallbacks) creates a solid foundation for future optimizations.

The project continues as Fast LiteLLM on GitHub for anyone interested in the Rust-Python integration patterns, even if the performance gains were humbling.

Edit: To clarify - the negative performance for token_counter is likely in the noise range of measurement, suggesting that LiteLLM's token counting is already well-optimized. The 45%+ gains in rate limiting and connection pooling still provide value for high-throughput applications.

The author created a Rust acceleration layer for LiteLLM, a Python library, and found that while some complex operations saw significant performance gains, the core functionality was already well-optimized.

Snapshot generated from the HN discussion

Discussion Activity

Light discussion

First comment

34m

Peak period

4

Hour 3

Avg / period

3

Comment distribution9 data points

Based on 9 loaded comments

Key moments

  1. 01Story posted

    11/18/2025, 4:32:16 PM

    5h ago

    Step 01
  2. 02First comment

    11/18/2025, 5:06:32 PM

    34m after posting

    Step 02
  3. 03Peak activity

    4 comments in Hour 3

    Hottest window of the conversation

    Step 03
  4. 04Latest activity

    11/18/2025, 7:38:27 PM

    2h ago

    Step 04

Generating AI Summary...

Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns

Discussion (0 comments)

Discussion hasn't started yet.

ID: 45968461Type: storyLast synced: 11/18/2025, 4:32:42 PM

Want the full context?

Jump to the original sources

Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.